A systematic review of the psychometric properties of pressure pain detection threshold in evaluating mechanical pain threshold in people with hand or wrist injuries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the psychometric properties of Pressure Pain Detection Threshold (PPDT) measures in people with hand or wrist injuries. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify eligible studies evaluating psychometric properties of PPDT in samples composed of at least 50% of people with hand or wrist injury. The Consensus-based Standards for the Measurement of Health Instruments' risk of bias checklist was used to critically appraise the included studies, and qualitative synthesis was performed by pooling the results of all studies that presented the same measurement property using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: From 415 studies, 11 relevant studies were identified. Of the 11 studies, four hand or wrist injuries were represented; carpal tunnel syndrome, distal radius fractures, osteoarthritis, and complex regional pain syndrome. Intra-rater reliability was considered sufficient (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.64-0.94), with small reported standard error of the mean values (5.3-39.2 kPa). Results of validity and responsiveness could not be synthesized due to heterogeneity. Risk of bias for reliability and measurement error was assessed as very good or adequate, whereas validity and responsiveness were doubtful or inadequate. Overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent results and low quality evidence provide little confidence in the overall measurement properties of PPDT in a hand or wrist injury population. No criterion standard for pain further highlights complexities around pain measurement such that the results obtained from PPDT measures in clinical practice cannot be compared to a gold standard measure.

Are people good prognosticators of their own pain? An exploration of the relationship between sex-specific pain beliefs and clinical pain evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Under-explored to date are the interacting influences of patient sex on multi-modal evaluation techniques that tap different domains of the pain experience. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of Study 1 was to explore the accuracy of sex-specific personal pain beliefs in relation to quantitative pain indicators within sexes, and the secondary objective was to compare the accuracy of sex-specific personal pain beliefs in relation to quantitative pain indicators between sexes. The primary objective of Study 2 was to explore the accuracy of sex-specific personal pain beliefs and self-rated pain severity within sexes, and the secondary objective was to compare sex-specific personal pain beliefs and pain severity ratings between sexes. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis on two datasets was performed (Study 1, n = 50; Study 2, n = 111). For both studies, independent samples t-tests were used to identify differences in clinical pain evaluations based on sex-specific pain beliefs. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the predictive accuracy of males and females clinical pain evaluations based on their ability to handle pain. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical pain evaluations based on self-rated pain beliefs in either study. In Study 2, males were descriptively more accurate predictors of their clinical pain evaluations than were females, though none of the between sex comparisons were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the importance of considering all available clinical pain evaluations as one technique is unlikely to represent the patients pain experience.